RE: AI
On 8 Nov 2002, at 7:25, Matthew Lewis wrote:
>
>
> > From: Kat [mailto:kat at kogeijin.com]
>
> > Eu can't inantely recode a sequence holding a new function,
> > and run it. Even
> > if you write it out to a new Eu program, and call memsharing
> > code, you
> > didn't/cannot allow in your initial code to store and recall
> > and use the
> > variables returned by the new "thread". At least, not without
> > a preprocessor
> > to scan the whole file and write new code to know the names
> > of all the vars.
> > Then you get into shutting down and restarting the code to use the
> > preprocessor. Mirc can make new vars and use them, and store small
> > programs in vars, and execute them. Or write them out and
> > include them
> > while running, and unload them. Eu should also.
>
> OK, I'll finally bite. A lot of this discussion seems to me to be bogged
> down in semantics, i.e., what does it mean for an AI to reprogram itself?
>
> Let's take the "I can't reprogram myself to fly argument." What does it
> mean for me "to fly"? If you mean with only what is a part of myself, then,
> no,
> I can't. However, I can use an airplane. What does that mean? Well, it
> means
> I use my hands and feet to push pedals and pull sticks and etc., and use my
> eyes
> to watch the dials and the outside world. These are all natural actions for
> these body parts of mine. I've just figured out how to coordinate them with
> great precision, given the input I've gotten("Gee, here's a plane"), combined
> with my desires ("I want to fly"). Did I "reprogram" my hands and feet? No.
> They're not doing anything unusual. Did I reprogram my brain? Well, maybe,
> but
> that could be simply the equivalent of reweighting a neural net.
The human brain has compartments, shown to be specialized, but
specialized by what, we don't know. For instance, the occipital lobes will
become audio processors when sight is permanently removed, and the
auditory section will help in sight if the sound is permanently removed. This
has been shown by MRI and CAT scans, and radioactive glucose uptake
studies, to show activity. This is what lead me to believe in a few smaller
neural nets, mediated, and called into action, by a central processor. The
neural nets are naturally reprogrammable, and the central processor needs
to know in what order to reprogram which, in what order to call what function.
As you learn, you are either stacking up if-then statements, case
statements, or new functions. Either way, it's new code, and you were not
programmed to know of the new code beforehand, so you could not allow for
it's dynamic inclusion.
> So, what might that look like. Well, I might have a set of input nodes that
> correspond to my eyes, another to ears, and so forth. A set of output nodes
> might correspond to what I tell my hands to do, etc. Now, this is all really
> complicated at the details level. What you might end up with is a generic
> neural net app with a database of interconnected nets. I suppose this could
> simulate some short term memory and feedback loops.
>
> Every time I've wanted to play around in this area, I've always been stumped
> because I could never find a meaningful, simple enough environment/domain in
> which to place an AI. I think, however, that a profitable approach would be
> to
> start with a well defined set of inputs and outputs (i.e., senses and actions)
> that are appropriate for whatever the environment will be, and then allow the
> AI
> to grow by responding to its environment. Yes, you'll have to instill some
> sort
> of instint (eat when hungry, scared of loud noises, attracted to the opposite
> sex, etc). Of course, when you've distilled things into a neural net, I'm not
> sure how you would translate these things.
I'd translate them less anthropomorphically.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
